To challenge that "judicial activism," Cruz said he is proposing a constitutional amendment to require Supreme Court justices to face retention
elections every eight years

How many more times can one challenge and attempt to repeal "Obamacare"? How much money has already been spent beating that dead equine?

"The decisions that have deformed our constitutional order and have debased our culture are but symptoms of the disease of liberal judicial
activism that has infected our judiciary," Cruz writes. "A remedy is needed that will restore health to the sick man in our constitutional system.
Rendering the justices directly accountable to the people would provide such a remedy."

Under Cruz's proposed amendment, justices would have to be approved by a majority of American voters as well as by the majority of voters in least
half of the states. If they failed to reach the required approval rating, they would be removed from office and barred from serving on the
Supreme Court in the future.

Does it sound a bit like he didn't get his way, so he wants to revamp the entire system so he can? What's next -- tantrums and sticking beans up
his nose?

And he's not the only one:

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who is expected to jump in the presidential race soon, also offered up a proposed constitutional fix to combat
the Supreme Court's marriage equality decision. In a statement, Walker argued for an amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman --
a proposal Cruz has also floated.

I agree. But to hold open elections , or something close , would be best.
1st - The only branch to where members are appointed for life.
2nd - The only branch where they are appointed and not elected.(i.e. the people have no say so at all)
They are not Chief of Staff , Attorney General , etc. , they are the Judicial Branch of the US Federal Government and equivalent to Congressional
members or the President. SO , why not ?

originally posted by: Gothmog
I agree. But to hold open elections , or something close , would be best.
1st - The only branch to where members are appointed for life.
2nd - The only branch where they are appointed and not elected.(i.e. the people have no say so at all)
They are not Chief of Staff , Attorney General , etc. , they are the Judicial Branch of the US Federal Government and equivalent to Congressional
members or the President. SO , why not ?

I have to agree; traditionally they made interpretations of the Constitution and the amendments instead of making current politically correct rulings
. 6 or 8 years post their opinions and let the people vote.

I agree with his general argument, but I do not believe that there should be an election. That opens the Supreme Court up to the same problems we
already have with our election process. No, instead, I would do away with the lifetime appointments and instead make it a single 20 year term. No
one should hold public office for life.

Although its not feasible, I really liked a proposal I heard a few days ago, which is that the US Supreme Court should consist of all the chief
justices of the state supreme courts.

Constitutional scholars, approved by Congress, should not be bound to any particular party, and not subject to being ousted due to social opinions.
Not to say they shouldn't listen to the mood of the country, but if they are to uphold the constitution then they should be permitted to do so without
concern over losing their jobs due to popular opinion from vocal politicians.

If that were the case, plans would be afoot today to oust them because of the recent decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

That debate is as old as the constitution. Supreme court justices were never intended to have life tenure, or be simply appointed, an anathema
reminiscent of kings and popes, the very system the constitution was trying to prevent.

A bargain was struck way back between the loyalists (who wanted the crown to remain sovereign) and the constitutionalists, they exchanged adding the
Bill of Rights for life tenure of Justices.

Even then, things weren't equal or just.

I don't have that link, just remember learning that in the way back machine. Someone else can dig that up.

Can Cruz show himself to be even more an idiot than he already has? Of course he can and he proved it with this. The reason why they are not voted in
by the public is so they will not be open to the corruption that already plagues our elected officials like Cruz. There already is a process available
to impeach the judges but crying for a way to remove them just because a bible thumper like Cruz doesn't like their decision is childish.

Ugh the epic whining over the Constitution being applied equally to all is ridiculous. Of course this isn't going to go anywhere, but man the
tantrums, suddenly these people that supposedly worship the founding fathers and the Constitution want to undo their work by changing the entire
system?

I think it may have more to do with the fact that they know that their party as long as it holds onto it's current platforms can never win the
presidency again and therefore loses it's hold on the Supreme Court. Can't win? Change the rules... that's how they hold onto the House, so why
not?

Pure and simple pandering to the Right Wing of the GOP. He knows it's not gonna happen. He also knows his presidential campaign is dead in the
water, so it doesn't matter what he says. Ted Cruz has passed into the irrelevant zone along with Trump, Cu0mo, Jendal, and Santorum. The GOP has
now delegated them to just carrying water for Jeb imo.

How many more times can one challenge and attempt to repeal "Obamacare"? How much money has already been spent beating that dead equine?

At some point we all have to learn to take our lumps - in a Democracy (or whatever the hell this is) there are always going to be winners and losers.
The losers have every right to try and legally legislate things around to their way of thinking - but past a point it becomes what this has become.
Obvious separatism is obvious

It's not just about Obamacare - it's about this entire administration. It explains so much. If it were possible to stage a coup - they would have

being able to vote cheapens Justice; makes it something that can be bought and sold.

No it doesn't. Besides -- what justice nowadays, Life tenure is the worst. Power and control freaks love it, though. The highest court in the land
makes the difficult decisions (supposed to anyway). Allowing them to be appointed, (for life) flies in the face of what the constitution is all about.
Every other position in government is by election, the judges were intended to be no different. As it was ordained they sowed the seeds of doubt by
allowing them to be "kings for life" in their own right. (The founding Fathers wept). They had no choice at the last minute, it was either Bill of
rights or supreme court justices, one or the other.

Goes to show how the King was influencing things even then. And how modern kings (career politicians) have subverted the system to keep themselves in
power for life, the biggest of red flags. Clinton or Bush anyone? Whats the difference anymore?

The system is watered down today. Checks and balances of the three branches are nonexistent, the president makes war without congress declaring it
anyway. And the Judges are reduced to debating issues like gay marriage(?).

Sorry about the ramblings of an old man.

ETA: Found this. Doesn't address origins of life tenure, more the founding fathers viewpoint.

Ted Cruz is perfectly happy with Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United, that allow him to raise unlimited amounts of completely anonymous special
interest campaign funds.

But when the Supreme Court rules against the TEA Party agenda, all of a sudden they are a problem.

What Ted Cruz needs to take into account is that if SCOTUS were an ELECTED body, most likely it would be more liberal rather than more Conservative.
Nationwide, Liberals outnumber Conservatives by quite a large margin, and the only fair election for SCOTUS would be a nationwide directly elected
body.

Ted Cruz loves to claim that he "loves the Constitution", but just like Christians that cherry pick The Bible for the bits they agree with while
ignoring the bits they don't, Ted Cruz seems to want to cherry pick the Constitution as well.

Several candidates on the far right seem to just want to ignore established rules and laws. Donald Trump seems to want to completely ignore NAFTA And
several other negotiated deals. Other candidates want to remove authority guaranteed to the President in the Constitution because they don't like
what Obama is doing with it.

These far right Christians are using a religion based in love and tolerance to promote hate and bigotry, and are claiming to be "Constitutional
Patriots" all while trying to adjust the Constitution to change America to their own needs.

They far right fundamental Christians really are the worst of the worst, and Ted Cruz leads the pack.

Don't forget - he is the one who signed himself and his family up for Obamacare, all while declaring how terrible it is.

TEA PARTIERS were also challenging Obama's birth place as being "foreign" despite Obama being a natural American at birth due to having an American
mother, then runs on the EXACT SAME BASIS that he was challenging Obama on. Ted Cruz was born abroad, has an American mother and a foreign born
father. EXACTLY the same circumstances that they were claiming made Obama (if he WERE born in Kenya) ineligible for President.

The far right are so hypocritical it's ridiculous.

However, trying to have a debate with someone on the far left is just as futile an exercise as having a debate with someone on the far right.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.